The President has decided to stick by his original intent to nominate former Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, as the new Secretary of Defense, to replace Leon Panetta.
Many Senators, especially among Hagel's former Republican colleagues are gearing up to oppose him. The truth is that whatever other issues they may have (and we will look at those,) there is one underlying fact: Chuck Hagel, if confirmed will be something that other Secretaries of Defense have not been. A combat veteran and an enlisted man rather than an officer. Hagel rose to the rank of sergeant and served in Vietnam, as a squad leader, where he was awarded the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and a commendation, as well as two purple hearts.
Fundamentally, that's what it comes down to. The Senators who will be sitting in judgement of Chuck Hagel are largely Ivy League educated, and often had things handed to them along the way. If they did serve in the military, they were officers, not 'grunts,' as enlisted soldiers are sometimes called. So they were much more comfortable confirming Secretaries of Defense like the past several, i.e. Leon Panetta (who was an army intelligence officer,) Robert Gates (who went directly into the CIA,) Donald Rumsfeld (an officer and flight instructor in the peacetime navy,) Bill Cohen (who was never in the military) William Perry (who was briefly an enlisted man in the peacetime military but later became an officer,) Les Aspin (an officer who served during Vietnam as a systems analyst in the Pentagon,) Dick Cheney(who subsisted on several college deferments to avoid going to Vietnam, though as Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush and later Vice President he was perfectly agreeable to sending other people off to fight,) Frank Carlucci (a naval officer who never saw combat) and Caspar Weinberger (a captain on Douglas MacArthur's intelligence staff who never saw combat.) IN FACT, IF CHUCK HAGEL BECOMES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HE WOULD BE THE FIRST SOLDIER TO GO THROUGH HIS CAREER AS AN ENLISTED MAN EVER TO HOLD THE OFFICE! He would also be the first combat veteran since Elliot Richardson, a Nixon administration official who led a platoon at Normandy as a young lieutanant. Later, after he had served as Secretary of Defense, Richardson became the Attorney General and showed he had much the same stuff as Hagel when he resigned rather than fire the Special Watergate Prosecutor on direct orders from the President. Even Richardson was an officer, however. The idea of an enlisted man giving orders to the entire military is upsetting and shocking to elitists in the Senate who believe that a military man must at least have received a commission before daring to stand before them and ask permission to serve in the office.
Traditionally, Presidents have had the right to select their cabinet members, with the term, 'advice and consent of the Senate,' mainly a formality. In fact, in the past century, only three cabinet nominees were not approved by the Senate. In 1925, Calvin Coolidge nominated Charles B. Warren for Attorney General. The Senate rejected Warren over his ties to the 'sugar trust,' a consortium of sugar companies that had been attempting to gain monopolistic control over the industry. The Senate rejected him, 41-39 (with over a dozen Senators abstaining.) Coolidge stupidly re-nominated Warren, and the Senate rejected him again.
In 1959, President Eisenhower nominated Louis Strauss, former head of the Atomic Energy Commission. Strauss, as head of the AEC had overseen a monthlong hearing which resulted in the revokation of the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had been the director of the Manhattan Project over Oppenheimer's political views. In 1954, when the hearing was held, the United States was still in the grip of McCarthyism, but by 1959 things had changed so much that Strauss' preoccupation with Oppenheimer and previous anti-communist witch hunt were held against him by many Senators, particularly those who saw in Strauss a stand-in for McCarthy, who many of them remembered and not fondly. Strauss didn't help his own case with his abrasive personality, arguing with members of the Senate who were questioning him. In the end, he was rejected by the Senate on a 49-46 vote.
In 1989, George H.W. Bush nominated Senator John Tower as Secretary of Defense. The Senate itself has always been considered a 'safe' place to go for a nominee, and that is what Bush thought, as Tower was a sitting Senator and Senators were generally more than happy to vote for a member of their own body, knowing them well (and in addition sometimes wanting to keep collegial relations because one day many of them might be nominees for cabinet positions.) What he miscalculated on was that Senators might know their own members too well. Senators generally don't air each other's dirty laundry to the press for obvious reasons, but as a nominee, it didn't take long for Tower's reputation for womanizing and heavy drinking to become an issue. In other words, Senators may know the nominee, but they may know personally issues that could disqualify him without having to root around and find those things. That was the case with Tower, who was rejected by a 53-47 vote.
Despite strong partisanship following the 2000 election, only two of George W. Bush's nominees even faced much questioning over their appointment. The only one who was opposed even by a majority of Democrats was Attorney General John Ashcroft, who won a 58-42 confirmation vote after issues were raised over his past refusal to enforce court orders on desegregation and other issues. Later during Bush's presidency, the Senate blocked one of his nominees, John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N. over concern that Bolton's abrasive style and inflammatory rhetoric might not be suited to the position; Bush made a recess appointment and appointed Bolton to the position anyway.
In 2008, President Obama, despite having a couple of nominees who had to step down before they had a hearing over allegations of scandal unrelated to either the President or the positions they were nominated for, was able to get the Senate to confirm all of his nominees (the most controversial probably being Eric Holder.) But two weeks ago, Susan Rice, who the President wanted to nominate for Secretary of Defense, stepped down after it would be clear that she would be blocked by the Senate over questions related to faulty information she apparently received and relayed regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate in September. As soon as that happened, attention turned to Hagel, who was even then rumored to be in the running for Secretary of Defense. Hagel is not only a former Senator, but a former Republican Senator, though one who was known for being willing to speak his mind and not necessarily constrained by party orthodoxy; for example Hagel, despite voting for the resolution in 2002 that was used by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq war, was one of the first Republicans to openly regret his vote and speak out against the war. At times his bluntness has gotten him in trouble, for example in 1998, he criticized James Hormel, President Clinton's nominee to serve as ambassador to Luxembourg, as "openly, aggressively gay." However, Hagel has apologized to Hormel and said that he was wrong and is now fully committed to supporting the rights of the LGBT community, and while Hormel originally was skeptical he has now accepted Hagel's apology. Hagel has said that if nominated he would continue to fully implement the repeal of 'Don't ask don't tell' that the Defense Department is now enforcing. While he could get some questions over this, I doubt if that would sink his nomination, since many people have over time changed their position on a number of issues including gay rights, and that includes some of Hagel's Senate colleagues (remember that in 1993, Bill Clinton settled for DADT because Congress wouldn't pass a law allowing openly gay members to serve in the military; but two years ago Congress did just that at President Obama's request, and quite a few members who were present in 1993 voted for it two years ago but probably would not have then.) Far better for Hagel to just say, as he has in effect done, "I was wrong," and move on.
A bigger issue with some members of the Senate is likely to be officially Hagel's stances on Israel and Iran. In fact, Hagel has several times expressed support for Israel, but has often criticized the power of the Israeli lobby in the U.S. Well, he's right. If the pro-Israel lobby wasn't so strong, we might not have seen so much opposition to Hagel for just cricitizing them. Hagel has openly opposed Iraeli settlement policies in the West Bank (something that President Obama opposes too) and in fact he is also correct that as long as Iraelis are building settlements on the West Bank, they are in effect rendering any kind of a 'two state solution' impossible. Hagel's opponents have taken to smearing him as a result as an anti-Semite. This is not unusual treatment for anyone who speaks out against Israeli policies (I've experienced it myself even though I was raised in a Jewish household) but even former Secretary of State William Cohen, himself both a Jew and a Republican, has defended Hagel against this charge
Hagel has also been skeptical of U.S. involvement in foreign wars and opposed both the troop surge in Iraq and the continued deployment in Afghanistan. Hagel is also on record as being skeptical of military operations against Iran, believing that it is much easier to get into a war than to get out of one. For this reasons, he wants to give sanctions a chance to work before contemplating military action in Iran or anyplace else.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED A COMBAT SOLDIER AS SECRETARY OF DEFNSE!!
Unlike the Secretaries of Defense that most members of the Senate are comfortable with, Chuck Hagel understands the ugly reality of combat and is reluctant to send soldiers into harm's way.
Maybe that's the real reason why mostly Republicans and some Democrats in the Senate are uncomfortable with the idea of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. It's true that he is a mere enlisted man, but they could probably get past their pride and arrogance on the matter if he wasn't so reluctant to send other people's children to foreign shores to fight and die. They don't like Hagel's reluctance, because they've always been so willing and eager themselves to give the word and vote to send the sons and daughters of others to go marching off to the next apocalypse.
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Monday, January 07, 2013
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The perils of foot dragging
Governors in the position of having an opportunity to pick a Senate seat certainly do face a daunting decision. They can promote a political ally, or give a boost to someone who can in turn, either through their personal popularity or their fundraising prowess, help the Governor further his or her own political career.
But the pitfalls are many as well. Choose poorly the reverse can happen. A Governor can turn an ally into an enemy, or suffer in terms of his or her own popularity because some people may disagree with the Senate selection.
What is clear though, is that the longer a Governor takes, the more intensely the spotlight shines, and the bigger the risks become.
We've obviously seen the Blagojevich scandal in Illinois, but even that is now taking a backseat to the intense and growing pressure that New York Governor David Paterson is under to alternately select Caroline Kennedy or not to select Caroline Kennedy (and if not Caroline Kennedy then all kinds of contradictory pressures as to who other than her to select.)
In contrast, outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner is leaving office without much heat. Granted, she is apparently retiring anyway, but despite questions that have been raised over her selection of an obscure aide to Joe Biden who is apparently just going to serve two years and keep the seat warm for Beau Biden, Joe's son who will run as soon as he gets back from Iraq, Minner isn't the focus of much media heat.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is starting to face a similar spotlight. The biggest question is whether he will appoint Ken Salazar's older brother, Congressman John Salazar to the Senate seat, or whether it will be someone with a different surname. My advice to Governor Ritter is this: If he doesn't want to end up in the same position as Governor Paterson, where virtually anything he does is sure to tick off a majority of the public and make some powerful enemies, he should act quickly and decisively and put a name out there.
But the pitfalls are many as well. Choose poorly the reverse can happen. A Governor can turn an ally into an enemy, or suffer in terms of his or her own popularity because some people may disagree with the Senate selection.
What is clear though, is that the longer a Governor takes, the more intensely the spotlight shines, and the bigger the risks become.
We've obviously seen the Blagojevich scandal in Illinois, but even that is now taking a backseat to the intense and growing pressure that New York Governor David Paterson is under to alternately select Caroline Kennedy or not to select Caroline Kennedy (and if not Caroline Kennedy then all kinds of contradictory pressures as to who other than her to select.)
In contrast, outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner is leaving office without much heat. Granted, she is apparently retiring anyway, but despite questions that have been raised over her selection of an obscure aide to Joe Biden who is apparently just going to serve two years and keep the seat warm for Beau Biden, Joe's son who will run as soon as he gets back from Iraq, Minner isn't the focus of much media heat.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is starting to face a similar spotlight. The biggest question is whether he will appoint Ken Salazar's older brother, Congressman John Salazar to the Senate seat, or whether it will be someone with a different surname. My advice to Governor Ritter is this: If he doesn't want to end up in the same position as Governor Paterson, where virtually anything he does is sure to tick off a majority of the public and make some powerful enemies, he should act quickly and decisively and put a name out there.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
A mandate, it is
The country that Barack Obama will take over is vastly different from the one that George W. Bush inherited eight years ago (I don't need to enumerate the differences, because we all know what they are.)
Nevertheless, the operative word here is hope. Our new President-elect is an enormously talented man, and the way he was able to balance calmness with measured action during the economic crisis a few weeks ago should give us confidence-- I know it gives me confidence.
Nationally, the election was historic, not only for the election of the first black President (those who would never vote for a black man are becoming older and less influential as time goes on, and they are now clearly themselves in a minority.) It was also historic because it is a mandate for the changes that Obama has laid out-- increased regulation, a return to the Clinton tax rates and a government that is prepared to take an activist role in everything from health care to energy independence. More than sixty-three million Americans cast votes for Barack Obama, more than have ever voted for any Presidential candidate in history. States like Virginia and Indiana, Republican strongholds for decades, voted for Obama last night. Even North Carolina, the home state of Jesse Helms, remains too close to call today.
Beyond that, it was historic for the gains that Democrats made in Congress. There are those on the right (like Bob Novak, today) who are trying to spin it as a failure because Democrats won't have sixty seats in the Senate. But the truth is, that was always a tall order and if you'd suggested at the start of the election cycle that Democrats could gain five seats in the Senate, that would have sounded pretty good. And five is a floor; right now there are still two Senate races being counted, one headed for a recount and a fourth headed to a December runoff. Likewise, some on the right are trying to spin the pickup of about 20 seats in the house as some kind of a diminishment, pointing out that it is near the low end of the latest pre-election estimates of some pundits. However, that kind of analysis conveniently omits the fact that only a few weeks ago those same pundits were predicting a Democratic gain in the single digits in the House. Ultimately it isn't the pundits who elect members of Congress, it is the voters. And the voters made a historic choice in Congress as well. Adding this year's gains to those of 2006, you see a swing of fifty seats in the house and at least eleven in the Senate. The timing of two consecutive wave elections is extraordinarily rare, most recently occurring in 1930-1932, when Democrats were the beneficiaries, and 1950-1952 when it benefitted Republicans. What it really is is one wave which hit over a period of time when it was divided into two parts. So yes, the mandate is clearly here.
Nevertheless, the operative word here is hope. Our new President-elect is an enormously talented man, and the way he was able to balance calmness with measured action during the economic crisis a few weeks ago should give us confidence-- I know it gives me confidence.
Nationally, the election was historic, not only for the election of the first black President (those who would never vote for a black man are becoming older and less influential as time goes on, and they are now clearly themselves in a minority.) It was also historic because it is a mandate for the changes that Obama has laid out-- increased regulation, a return to the Clinton tax rates and a government that is prepared to take an activist role in everything from health care to energy independence. More than sixty-three million Americans cast votes for Barack Obama, more than have ever voted for any Presidential candidate in history. States like Virginia and Indiana, Republican strongholds for decades, voted for Obama last night. Even North Carolina, the home state of Jesse Helms, remains too close to call today.
Beyond that, it was historic for the gains that Democrats made in Congress. There are those on the right (like Bob Novak, today) who are trying to spin it as a failure because Democrats won't have sixty seats in the Senate. But the truth is, that was always a tall order and if you'd suggested at the start of the election cycle that Democrats could gain five seats in the Senate, that would have sounded pretty good. And five is a floor; right now there are still two Senate races being counted, one headed for a recount and a fourth headed to a December runoff. Likewise, some on the right are trying to spin the pickup of about 20 seats in the house as some kind of a diminishment, pointing out that it is near the low end of the latest pre-election estimates of some pundits. However, that kind of analysis conveniently omits the fact that only a few weeks ago those same pundits were predicting a Democratic gain in the single digits in the House. Ultimately it isn't the pundits who elect members of Congress, it is the voters. And the voters made a historic choice in Congress as well. Adding this year's gains to those of 2006, you see a swing of fifty seats in the house and at least eleven in the Senate. The timing of two consecutive wave elections is extraordinarily rare, most recently occurring in 1930-1932, when Democrats were the beneficiaries, and 1950-1952 when it benefitted Republicans. What it really is is one wave which hit over a period of time when it was divided into two parts. So yes, the mandate is clearly here.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Everybody come back, I wanna turn!
John McCain has offered to come off the campaign trail if Congress will go back into session. Congress has adjourned for the traditional August recess.
Why then, has he not been present since April 8? Recall that he had long since locked up the GOP nomination by the last time he cast a vote in the Senate, while Barack Obama, despite having to campaign until June to lock up his nomination has still found the time to come into the Senate and cast several votes during that time, including the medicare reimbursement bill for doctors, a bill that Senator McCain conveniently skipped so he wouldn't have to take a position on a controversial issue.
It seems that if John McCain has 'generously' offered to come off the campaign trail to go to work, then he should have done so at least once in the past four months while the Senate was actually in session. In fact if he'd picked the right day he might even have met Senator Obama while he was taking time off the campaign trail to cast at least a few votes.
Why then, has he not been present since April 8? Recall that he had long since locked up the GOP nomination by the last time he cast a vote in the Senate, while Barack Obama, despite having to campaign until June to lock up his nomination has still found the time to come into the Senate and cast several votes during that time, including the medicare reimbursement bill for doctors, a bill that Senator McCain conveniently skipped so he wouldn't have to take a position on a controversial issue.
It seems that if John McCain has 'generously' offered to come off the campaign trail to go to work, then he should have done so at least once in the past four months while the Senate was actually in session. In fact if he'd picked the right day he might even have met Senator Obama while he was taking time off the campaign trail to cast at least a few votes.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
56 for. 34 against. 1 unable to vote. And 9 afraid to vote.
On the Senate vote to end the filibuster and move forward with the nonbinding resolution opposing the President's troop increase plan for Iraq, it failed to get the necessary 60 votes, failing 56-34.
Seven Republicans (Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Hagel (NE), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Spectre (PA) and Warner (VA)) joined 49 Democrats in voting to move forward on the resolution. Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota is still recovering from emergency brain surgery and was unable to vote.
Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined 33 Republicans in voting against moving forward. I don't agree with this position, but at least they were all willing to stand up and be counted for what they believe in.
If you do the math, you will see that this means that nine Republicans did not vote on this at all. They in fact hold the key-- if even half of them had voted to move the resolution forward it would have, and if seven of them had voted with their party-mates then it would have clearly sent a message that the GOP could block such a resolution in the Senate and won't support it (since their own party leaders are pushing a plan that would also require sixty votes, not just to end debate, but to actually pass the resolution-- a very unusual requirement for a floor vote).
In other words, this is a resolution on a plan that will either result in a turning point in Iraq (if the President, against mine and a lot of other expectations turns out to be right) or a catastrophic increase in American casualties and more to the point, giving insurgents if they are still around next year the ammunition to claim they took our 'best shot' and still came through it (therefore making our failure worse). And these nine couldn't even muster the backbone to have a position.
Seven Republicans (Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Hagel (NE), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Spectre (PA) and Warner (VA)) joined 49 Democrats in voting to move forward on the resolution. Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota is still recovering from emergency brain surgery and was unable to vote.
Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined 33 Republicans in voting against moving forward. I don't agree with this position, but at least they were all willing to stand up and be counted for what they believe in.
If you do the math, you will see that this means that nine Republicans did not vote on this at all. They in fact hold the key-- if even half of them had voted to move the resolution forward it would have, and if seven of them had voted with their party-mates then it would have clearly sent a message that the GOP could block such a resolution in the Senate and won't support it (since their own party leaders are pushing a plan that would also require sixty votes, not just to end debate, but to actually pass the resolution-- a very unusual requirement for a floor vote).
In other words, this is a resolution on a plan that will either result in a turning point in Iraq (if the President, against mine and a lot of other expectations turns out to be right) or a catastrophic increase in American casualties and more to the point, giving insurgents if they are still around next year the ammunition to claim they took our 'best shot' and still came through it (therefore making our failure worse). And these nine couldn't even muster the backbone to have a position.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Real versus Symbolic
During today's Senate hearing in which Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice defended the Bush administration's plan to dump yet more Americans into Iraq, many Senators expressed their opposition. However, only Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) talked about forcing a withdrawl by use of the power of Congress to control the budget.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is talking about a resolution "expressing opposition" to the President's Iraq strategy. Republicans may filibuster the measure.
But even if they don't filibuster or aren't successful at blocking it, the Reid resolution actually does virtually nothing. We will continue to lose American troops in Iraq just as we are now, if it passes.
I'm not saying that there may not be times when a symbolic resolution makes sense, because there are. But in a case like what we see now, when the President's 'new' Iraq strategy has no more chance of success than any of his previous Iraq strategies, and the price for the delay will be paid in American lives, to push for only a symbolic resolution is morally indefensible. Even to many of the Senators who supported the initial Iraq war effort, it has become painfully clear that the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy was so bungled early on that we are now stuck in an intractable guerilla war which is not likely to be resolved via a clear military win. This guerilla war further overlays a civil war going on within Iraq. Essentially the President's strategy with the 'surge' is to 'shoot at both sides' in Baghdad, continuing to target Sunni insurgents but also going after the Shi'ite Mahdi militia. Such a strategy won't work any more than we have been successful at stopping Sunni insurgents during the time when we've just been going after them.
In such a situation, the American troop surge will primarily produce more casualties and not substantively make any difference in Iraq.
As such, a 'symbolic' resolution is a cowardly path to take. The Senate should step up and vote on a real resolution as should the house. True, the Republicans would most certainly filibuster it, but it's still better to lose pushing for a real change that has teeth, than to push for one with no teeth (which might still end up losing anyway).
Even some Republicans who supported the war (like Chuck Hagel) are now coming to the realization that this war can't be won and will require a negotiated, diplomatic solution (one reason for my support for Bill Richardson-- it's a straight up question of which Presidential candidate is the best diplomat because the next President will be tasked with negotiating our way out, so what we need is the strongest negotiator we can find).
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is talking about a resolution "expressing opposition" to the President's Iraq strategy. Republicans may filibuster the measure.
But even if they don't filibuster or aren't successful at blocking it, the Reid resolution actually does virtually nothing. We will continue to lose American troops in Iraq just as we are now, if it passes.
I'm not saying that there may not be times when a symbolic resolution makes sense, because there are. But in a case like what we see now, when the President's 'new' Iraq strategy has no more chance of success than any of his previous Iraq strategies, and the price for the delay will be paid in American lives, to push for only a symbolic resolution is morally indefensible. Even to many of the Senators who supported the initial Iraq war effort, it has become painfully clear that the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy was so bungled early on that we are now stuck in an intractable guerilla war which is not likely to be resolved via a clear military win. This guerilla war further overlays a civil war going on within Iraq. Essentially the President's strategy with the 'surge' is to 'shoot at both sides' in Baghdad, continuing to target Sunni insurgents but also going after the Shi'ite Mahdi militia. Such a strategy won't work any more than we have been successful at stopping Sunni insurgents during the time when we've just been going after them.
In such a situation, the American troop surge will primarily produce more casualties and not substantively make any difference in Iraq.
As such, a 'symbolic' resolution is a cowardly path to take. The Senate should step up and vote on a real resolution as should the house. True, the Republicans would most certainly filibuster it, but it's still better to lose pushing for a real change that has teeth, than to push for one with no teeth (which might still end up losing anyway).
Even some Republicans who supported the war (like Chuck Hagel) are now coming to the realization that this war can't be won and will require a negotiated, diplomatic solution (one reason for my support for Bill Richardson-- it's a straight up question of which Presidential candidate is the best diplomat because the next President will be tasked with negotiating our way out, so what we need is the strongest negotiator we can find).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
